Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldorian" data-source="post: 4671781" data-attributes="member: 10504">First off, an argument by analogy isn't a fallacy.  Watch yourself, you're limiting your ability to learn.  In my field, (mathematics) we often use such arguments, by showing two things are the same in the relevant sense, then proving something about one thing and implying it's true about the other.  How the two things are alike is what's important.  And in this case, both of them use the same language, and reference the use of a skill, which use the same general rules.The text in the book that I rely on is the one you posted yourself.  SPECIFIC BEATS GENERAL:If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.Fleeting Ghost's only contradiction of the specific rule is that you don't take the penalty for moving.  When the power says make a stealth check, it doesn't say you become hidden after using it.  You have to reference what a stealth check can do.  In stealth's case, it can do only one thing (in the player's handbook, outside of DM specified things such as skill challenges), and that is make you hidden.  But it can do this only if you have total concealment or superior cover from some enemy.Here is an example that ruins your line of thinking.Say a rogue uses Fleeting Ghost and moves into a square which provides superior cover from foe 1, and concealment from foe 2.  He moves, and makes a stealth check.  He looks up stealth, and reads that he can only make it against a foe he has total concealment or superior cover from, so he can become hidden from foe 1, but not foe 2.  The power didn't say he can make a stealth check against every foe, just that he could make one.There.  He got to make his stealth check to become hidden (your whole argument is that the power makes him make a stealth check, so he HAS to have the ability to become hidden because that's all stealth can do.)  However, if he only had cover from foe 1, he could have become hidden from both (he had to make a stealth check, and neither of his opponents were more deserving of getting hid from).  That, my friend, is a reductio ad absurdum.  If you like logic so much.</blockquote>

Verification